GreenAsJade Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Geez - it was an interesting discussion till you guys started trolling each other. Lay off will you? (FWIW ... I thought civdiv's original post was fine, but people take thing differently.) GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 From the original post, cividiv would rule out the 25pdr based on grouping. I wouldn't. Although it turns out to be a high-velocity 6pdr, that doesn't, IMHO, make ruling out the 25pdr a reasonable assumption. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Originally posted by kdonahueus: I am the one that posted the "Photograph" website of the knocked out Panzer III L you have debated about. Well, I heard it from the horses mouth so to speak as I interviewed in 2005 the British Anti-Tank commander who's crews were responsible for knocking it out. All of my findings are going into a book that I am writing. In short, the tank was hit by a British 6 pound ant-tank gun. Yes, it was hit with more rounds to spice up photos for American and British photographers who wanted some action photos. Great stuff! Did the (apparently) dead crewman in the picture turn out to be posed? Or do we have to wait to buy the book to find out? It's such a beautifully composed picture that I'm afraid my first thought was that it must be another production from "Chet's Circus" -- lovely photography, but totally fake. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 I got my copy from the Fedorowicz book on 10 Panzer Division and it is stated there that they photo must be posed. As we have an earlier pic with the turret door and tool box still in place then it obviously is set up for the camera. If I remember correctly quite a few 'famous'Desert photos were staged for the cameras. The cast hull Sherman photo I posted seems to have 5 penetrations roughly in a line and then an internal explosion split the hull along this line Unfortunately I am not related to the NZ Kennys. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 kdonahueus, Thanks for sharing what you turned up. I have something else to add to the stew. That same picture apparently suckered the photo editors for John Delaney's FIGHTING THE DESERT FOX, seeing as how it appears on page 43 as IWM STT3217. If we're to believe the caption, and I emphatically don't, the holes are from "2pdr armour-piercing shells." Thus, it is wrong not merely as to gun/projectile combination, but also got the projectile type wrong for the presumed and incorrect 2pdr, which had no AP shell. All, The 25pdr in DF discussion was intriguing. I've long known it was used as an ad hoc AT weapon in the Western Desert, but I'd never seen a direct comparison of its MV with tank cannon. I did, though, expect it to be in the ballpark given my expectation that it would be fired with supercharge. Gander & Chamberlain's WEAPONS OF THE THIRD REICH, p. 188, lists the supercharge MV for the 8.76 cm Feldkanone 280 (e) (captured 25 pdr Mark II) as as 532 m/s, or 1744.96 fps. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 The totally blown-open Sherman is pretty nasty. I don't recall where the ammo stowage is on a Sherman, but I think that it's under the turret ring behind the turret, which would be consistant with the apparent location of the blast. It also looks as if it's made the engine go away 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Originally posted by flamingknives: It also looks as if it's made the engine go away What a delightful turn of phrase 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Well, I was going to say something along the lines of "go forth and multiply", but this is an unrestricted forum. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 flamingknives, I've seen plenty of destroyed tanks, but that's the first one I've ever seen peeled like a banana. (shudders) Sherman ammo stowage, per what I believe is a John Batchelor cutaway illo in Beekman's TANKS & WEAPONS OF WORLD WAR II, p. 118, is as follows: R&L front-17 rounds, R middle-14 rounds, 12 rounds on floor at rear of and below turret race, 15 rounds on floor below the breech. If you want to know where the side stowage was, simply look at a Sherman with full side applique. Those plates are covering the otherwise highly vulnerable ammo racks. Would love to know more about the Sherman which tore along the dotted line! Regards, John Kettler [ February 04, 2007, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Originally posted by civdiv: Your original comment is both extremily annoying and uninformitive. If this were real life instead of on the internet you would not make that comment. Maybe that should be your litmus test; if I wouldn't say it to the person in real life maybe I shouldn't say it here. You don't know me, so if I were you, I'd be more hesitant to tell me what I would do in real life. If in a conversation I am party to one of the persons was telling another one off based on a misunderstanding, and then labelled all that person contributed as useless out of spite, even though he is wrong to do so, I would say something. My original comment was not uninformative, since it informed you of something you were willing to dismiss because you had an issue with an inappropriate remark by fk. "A low velocity artillery piece would have real problems obtaining that sort of shot group..." The 25-pdr was not a low-velocity field-piece, as shown by fk's link, either together with existing knowledge about the MV of other field pieces, or a quick google search. "25 pdr doesn't have solid shot. " The 25-pdr did have solid shot, as shown by fk's link. fk provided this info. It was not right for him to link your argument to ex cathedra, but it is equally wrong to dismiss it because of his fault, which is not related to the content. That's all what compelled me to make my useless remark. Nigel Evan's site can not be linked often enough. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 2 more views of the Sherman with the 'split' and one with a turret that went up in the air and came down with its gun barrel in a hatch! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 25+ years ago I spet a few days around Duxford in hte UK, and there was a Sherman parked outside that had been used for target practice - IIRC by 2 pounders mainly. Penetrating shots were marked and maybe 1/3rd of them had done so. I seem to recall one shot was still stuck in hte armour. Somewhere I have an old fashioned photo of it but perhaps someone else has some electronic ones?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 About 2/3rds the way down there's a substantially shot-up M3 that has been restored to running order. Linky 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civdiv Posted February 7, 2007 Author Share Posted February 7, 2007 Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by civdiv: You don't know me, so if I were you, I'd be more hesitant to tell me what I would do in real life. If in a conversation I am party to one of the persons was telling another one off based on a misunderstanding, and then labelled all that person contributed as useless out of spite, even though he is wrong to do so, I would say something. My original comment was not uninformative, since it informed you of something you were willing to dismiss because you had an issue with an inappropriate remark by fk. "A low velocity artillery piece would have real problems obtaining that sort of shot group..." The 25-pdr was not a low-velocity field-piece, as shown by fk's link, either together with existing knowledge about the MV of other field pieces, or a quick google search. "25 pdr doesn't have solid shot. " The 25-pdr did have solid shot, as shown by fk's link. fk provided this info. It was not right for him to link your argument to ex cathedra, but it is equally wrong to dismiss it because of his fault, which is not related to the content. That's all what compelled me to make my useless remark. Nigel Evan's site can not be linked often enough. All the best Andreas </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 That M3 looks an awful lot like how an M-11/39 of mine which was under Boys fire for most of a ROW IV battle must've looked. It's seeming unkillability, despite an almost literal death of a thousand cuts, practically drove my opponent mad. As for the 25 pdr in the DF ad hoc AT role, Heckmann's ROMMEL'S WAR IN AFRICA has a bunch of examples, such as p. 179 et. seq. You can read about such engagements from both sides. See also Hogg's excellent account of one such engagement from the British side (1st Field Regiment) in BARRAGE, pp.59-62. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.